News Stories

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

It's high time we start cutting or removing social programs as well as getting rid of entire Federal Departments. I'd start with the Departments of Education, Agriculture, etc. Bump the retirement age up for Social Security. Remove all forms of Welfare/Food Stamps, etc. Give young people the option to completely opt out of Social Security while we haven't put in 40+ years worth. The system is going bankrupt as it is. Get rid of the Politicians' Pensions. Give them term limits. Force them to use Airlines for their travel instead of Private Jets and Military Jets in some cases(yes I'm looking at you Pelosi).

I hear conservatives talk about this all the time and I have to wonder, what exactly do you think is going to happen if we did do just that? Not trying to be rude or sarcastic or anything. I'm genuinely curious what the expected outcome is going to be and how you expect doing away with social programs like that is going to help. What do you think is going to improve? What negative impacts do you think it will have if any? What good do you think will come out it? Now I'm realizing I'm probably asking you to write an essay here to give a complete run down, so feel free to be brief as long as you think you're explaining things well enough.

[iLney]

You are asking what will happen if we stop giving drugs to an addict?

[Solace]

I'm wondering if this discussion might be better served as a new thread. It might be too much for this one.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by mg1942

This is from a Canadian but it is an excellent article about our US spending.

It's a cold, cruel fact that we cannot afford the entitlement programs. Pretending we can and borrowing trillions to finance it can only end in disaster.

The big question is, will the idiots promoting the increase of these entitlements come to their senses before they destroy the entire economic system of not only the US but of the world.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ng_104503.html

The Obama administration's financial projections are extremely optimistic, yet even if they all come true, the U.S. debt will continue to grow unsustainably. The kind of alarm falsely placed in "global warming" would more usefully be directed towards the remarkable cooling effect this will have, as all our fiscal and demographic trends converge. For this is a predictable future; an issue where the numbers correspond to real things, not to mere speculation.

Wow, finally an echo on demographic convergence outside of specialized press...

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I hear conservatives talk about this all the time and I have to wonder, what exactly do you think is going to happen if we did do just that? Not trying to be rude or sarcastic or anything. I'm genuinely curious what the expected outcome is going to be and how you expect doing away with social programs like that is going to help. What do you think is going to improve? What negative impacts do you think it will have if any? What good do you think will come out it? Now I'm realizing I'm probably asking you to write an essay here to give a complete run down, so feel free to be brief as long as you think you're explaining things well enough.

Most of America's history didn't have any of the departments or social programs that are in place now. Infact, America became the Super Power that it is, before they were ever put on Legislation. With as much money as the Federal Government dumps into these Departments and programs every single year(hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars), what exactly do we have to show for it? Our students are far behind much of Europe and Asia, when we were once near the top if not at the top.

The Government is extremely inefficient. There is much bureaucracy and red-tape, and I'd wager near half of the money spent, ends up not being used for it's intended purpose. Not to mention, it was never the job of the Federal Government, to be in 90% of the programs it's in now. At some point, you have to say that enough is enough.

As Dennis Prager loves to say, and I agree with him wholeheartedly on this. The bigger the Government, the smaller the individual. That is not an American Value. Never has been, and never should be.

[Xellos-_^]

this has been giving me nightmares since i first saw it

thought i share it with everyone else.

[Reckoner]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_472172.html

Jobs Bill VOTE: GOP Filibuster Fails As Scott Brown And Others Break With Party

Scott Brown was in and out of the Senate chamber and had voted against his party before most of his colleagues had even arrived.

"It's a small step, but it's still a step," Brown told reporters after casting a procedural vote in favor of the Democratic jobs bill, bucking his party leaders and the strategy of opposition they have carried out since President Obama took office.

For Senate Democrats, it was much bigger step. Four Republicans followed Brown's lead, giving the jobs legislation 62 votes, two more than needed to cut off a GOP filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) thanked the newly-elected Republican from Massachusetts. "I hope this is the beginning of a new day here in the Senate. Whether this new day was created by the new Senator from Massachusetts or some other reason, I'm very, very happy that we were able to get this done. But there are some winners. Not any individual Senator, not Democrats or Republicans. The winners are small business people throughout this country."

Brown was followed by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who was followed by her home state GOP colleague Olympia Snowe.

Sens. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Kit Bond (R-Mo.), who are retiring, also backed the bill.

Voinovich's vote came after he was given an assurance from Reid that the surface transportation reauthorization bill that Voinovich prizes will be given high priority.
Story continues below

Voinovich, who was patted on the back by a grateful Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) after the vote, said that he could see himself working jointly with Brown and Democrats for the remainder of the term.

"I think he and I are going to do a lot of music together," said Voinovich. "My vote was reflective of what I thought made sense."

Voinovich didn't stick around for any loyalty lectures after his vote. "I have no idea," said Voinovich when asked what leadership thought of his vote. "I voted and took off."

Brown also said that he had "no idea" how the rest of his colleagues would vote. But it was good enough for him. "It's not a perfect bill. I would have liked broader and deeper tax cuts, but I was comfortable with that first vote," said Brown.

Of the 41 Republicans, 29 opposed the measure, while six skipped the vote. More Republicans skipped the vote than voted in favor.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), meanwhile, muddled the message of Democratic unity behind the jobs bill. He voted against it.

Voinovich wanted reporters to know about the terms he'd reached with Reid. After voting to break the filibuster, he handed out paper copies of statements to reporters waiting just off the Senate floor.

"I spoke to Majority Leader Reid prior to this vote and he assured me that he understands the importance of a surface transportation reauthorization bill," the statement reads. "I reiterated that it is the best way to create jobs, provide an immediate stimulus to the economy, rebuild our nation's infrastructure and reduce our carbon footprint. Leader Reid gave me his commitment that he will bring the reauthorization of a multi-year surface transportation bill to the floor for a vote this year. I look forward to working with Sen. Reid, Sen. Boxer and others to do so as soon as possible so we can put Americans back to work."

Shortly after, the White House released a statement by President Obama on the cloture vote:

The American people want to see Washington put aside partisan differences and make progress on jobs, and today the Senate took one important step forward in doing that. I'm grateful to the Democratic and Republican Senators who voted to support these investments in infrastructure and small businesses. This is one of many efforts we need to tackle our economic challenges, and we will continue to work with Congress on additional job creation measures. Jobs remain our top priority, and I look forward to working with members from both parties to get legislation signed, and the American people back to work.

* * * *

EARLIER UPDATE -- 4:45 PM ET:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intends to challenge Republicans on Monday evening to prove that they are willing to do something -- anything -- to create jobs.

Reid will tout a trimmed-down jobs bill built with business tax breaks and other components that Republicans have backed in the past. His office put together an annotated catalog of the depth of Republican support for the various provisions in the bill.

The Senate previously considered a bill that was much more generous to K Street, though it had less to do with job creation. It was building bipartisan support when Reid stripped it down to a more targeted plan.

Reid said that the Senate will have the opportunity to take up other job-creation provisions in the future once this first bill passes. "The answer is not to do nothing," Reid says in prepared remarks. "It is to do something to create jobs, and then create more jobs, and then create more jobs after that. That's why this is not the only jobs bill or the last jobs bill we will bring to the floor."

"But, we can't do it alone," says Reid. "Republicans share the responsibility to govern. If they support this bill -- as they have in the past -- and if they join us now to pass it, we will do many, many more just like it. However, if they once again put partisanship ahead of people -- if they once again try to distract from the issue at hand -- they will only confirm their reputation as the Party of No. They will only confirm the American people's fears that Republicans refuse to do anything to help them."

Reid then makes a direct challenge: "So to my Republican colleagues, here is your chance. Show us you're serious about legislating. Show our constituents you're serious about leading. Show the skeptics that you know putting people back to work is far more important than putting points up on the political scoreboard."

If Republicans choose to filibuster the bill, Democrats will have a political weapon in their hands and will press the Party of No line forward.

"Most important, I ask my reluctant Republican colleagues to show those Americans who deserve a job to go to every the morning that we're willing to do our jobs this evening," Reid said. "It's remarkable that we have to hold a procedural vote on a bill that will create jobs. It will be regrettable if the minority prevents us from moving forward, from taking that first step, from giving millions of unemployed Americans the hope that tomorrow will be better than yesterday."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Sunday that Republicans were willing to go along with Reid's earlier bill until he broke it up.

"What was a mystery to us is how the bipartisan bill got shelved. I thought it was moving along a bipartisan path. Many of my members were going to support it. And all of a sudden the majority leader decided to skinny it down," he said. "I mean, the point is he needs to bring up the bill. We need to have amendments and vote on it. I think -- in fact, Senator Bayh referred to this in his retirement announcement as one of his frustrations. I share his frustration. I thought that bill was on the way to being called up, amended, debate and voted on."

Looks like some good news is rolling around in Congress finally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_471410.html

Najibullah Zazi Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy To Use Weapons Of Mass Destruction

NEW YORK — A former airport shuttle driver accused of buying beauty supplies to make bombs for an attack on New York City subways pleaded guilty Monday, admitting he agreed to conduct an al-Qaida-led "martyrdom operation" because of U.S. involvement in his native Afghanistan.

Najibullah Zazi told a judge the terror network recruited him to be a suicide bomber in New York, where he went to high school and once worked a coffee cart just blocks from the World Trade Center site.

"I would sacrifice myself to bring attention to what the U.S. military was doing to civilians in Afghanistan," Zazi said in court.

The Associated Press learned earlier this month that the jailed Zazi had recently volunteered information about the bomb plot in the first step toward a plea deal. His cooperation suggests prosecutors hope to expand the case and bring charges against other suspects in one of the most serious terrorism threats in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the terror investigation is ongoing.

Zazi, 25, pleaded guilty to conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiring to commit murder in a foreign country and providing material support for a terrorist organization. He faces a life prison sentence without parole at a sentencing in June.

The bombings "could have been devastating," Attorney General Eric Holder said in Washington. "This attempted attack on our homeland was real, it was in motion, and it would have been deadly."

Zazi said in court he traveled to Pakistan in 2008 to join the Taliban and fight against the U.S. military but was recruited by the terrorist network in Peshewar and went into a training camp in Warziristan, a region of Pakistan where al-Qaida is known to operate.

Zazi said he received weapons training at the camp and learned about explosives. He also said in court that he had been in contact with al-Qaida operatives while in Pakistan, but he did not identify them.
Story continues below

"During the training, al-Qaida leaders asked us to return to the United States and conduct martyrdom operation," he said. "We agreed to this plan."

The Pakistan Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Zazi's case.

Zazi admitted using notes taken at the training camp to build homemade explosives with beauty supplies purchased in the Denver suburbs and cooked up in a Colorado hotel room. He then drove the materials to New York just before the eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

His plan was to assemble the bombs over the weekend and detonate them in the following days.

While entering the city, he was stopped by police for a routine traffic violation on the George Washington Bridge, which connects New Jersey and New York. Suspicious officers allowed him to go free but kept a close watch on his movements.

"The plan was to conduct martydom operation on the subway lines in Manhattan as soon as the material was ready," he said, adding the attack involved a number of bombs.

Days later, authorities raided several Queens apartments, including a friend's home where Zazi had stayed.

Asked by federal Judge Raymond J. Dearie if he had been willing to be a suicide bomber, Zazi said, "Yes, your honor."

Sometime after the traffic stop, Zazi realized New York authorities were investigating him. "At that point, we threw away the detonator explosives and other materials," he said.

One of the people familiar with the investigation said that Zazi told prosecutors that he made roughly two pounds of a powerful and highly unstable explosive called triacetone triperoxide, or TATP.

The same explosive was used by would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid in 2001 and the terrorists who carried out the London bombings in 2005 that killed 52 people. In those instances, TATP was not the main charge; it was the detonator.

One of the people familiar with the Zazi case told the AP that Zazi decided to cooperate after being warned that his mother could face criminal immigration charges. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is in progress.

After Monday's hearing, Zazi's attorney, William Stampur, would only say: "The plea speaks for itself."

The written plea agreement is sealed.

In Washington, Holder used the case to rebut Republican critics who have said the Democratic administration should try such terrorism suspects before military tribunals rather than through civilian courts.

"To take this tool out of our hands, to denigrate this tool, flies in the face of facts and is more about politics than it is about facts," Holder said at a news conference.

Others charged in the terror case include Zazi's father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, who was accused this month of trying to get rid of chemicals and other evidence.

After initially demanding that he be jailed in Brooklyn without bail, prosecutors agreed to a deal on Feb. 17 releasing him on $50,000 bond and allowing him to return to his home in suburban Denver.

By contrast, bond for a Queens imam charged with lying to the FBI about phone contact with Zazi when Zazi was in New York was set at $1.5 million. A friend of Zazi's, New York cab driver Zarein Ahmedzay, was jailed without bail on a similar lying charge.

Authorities say Ahmedzay and another former high school classmate of Zazi's, Adis Medunjanin, traveled to Pakistan with Zazi in 2008. Medunjanin has pleaded not guilty to charges he conspired to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and remains jailed.

Officials earlier confirmed reports week that Zazi's uncle had been arraigned on a felony count in secret – a sign that he also could be cooperating.

___

Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett and Pete Yost in Washington and Larry Neumeister in New York contributed to this report.

[justinstrife]

Call me skeptical that this job bill is going to be worth the money spent. I'd like to be optimistic, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Call me skeptical that this job bill is going to be worth the money spent. I'd like to be optimistic, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

depends on what it spends the money on. rebuilding infastrcutre (roads, power grid, bridges, etc) then it will be. tax breaks for wooded arrows and other pork projects, then the answer is no.

[Vexx]

In Australia, well on their way to "We've always been at war with Oceania"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8529613.stm

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has warned that his country is now under a permanent and increased threat of militant attack.

"Boo!!! Be Afraid!!", Rudd said.... okay he didn't *say* that explicitly.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Most of America's history didn't have any of the departments or social programs that are in place now. Infact, America became the Super Power that it is, before they were ever put on Legislation. With as much money as the Federal Government dumps into these Departments and programs every single year(hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars), what exactly do we have to show for it? Our students are far behind much of Europe and Asia, when we were once near the top if not at the top.

The Government is extremely inefficient. There is much bureaucracy and red-tape, and I'd wager near half of the money spent, ends up not being used for it's intended purpose. Not to mention, it was never the job of the Federal Government, to be in 90% of the programs it's in now. At some point, you have to say that enough is enough.

As Dennis Prager loves to say, and I agree with him wholeheartedly on this. The bigger the Government, the smaller the individual. That is not an American Value. Never has been, and never should be.

Right, bureaucracy, big government, ect. I'm not asking about that. What would the effects of cutting these programs be on the people? How is cutting federal funding for schools going to improve them? What's going to happen to people on social security, medicare or medicade? What about people on food stamps? I'm giving you a chance to explain how you think this will impact the people and make their lives better.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

50% of people don't pay income taxes. Your point?

Public option is a bad idea. As is this healthcare bill that the politicians in congress are trying to pass. We.Can't.Afford.It.

It's high time we start cutting or removing social programs as well as getting rid of entire Federal Departments. I'd start with the Departments of Education, Agriculture, etc. Bump the retirement age up for Social Security. Remove all forms of Welfare/Food Stamps, etc. Give young people the option to completely opt out of Social Security while we haven't put in 40+ years worth. The system is going bankrupt as it is. Get rid of the Politicians' Pensions. Give them term limits. Force them to use Airlines for their travel instead of Private Jets and Military Jets in some cases(yes I'm looking at you Pelosi).

Other countries have all of that and are still at least reasonably better off than the US in terms of debt. I think the real problem lies in where tax money is actually going. I could go on and blame globalization and how there's too much privatization in the US, but I digress. And like Kamui, I'm posing the question of how removing all the social programs is going to actually help people (or not).

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Right, bureaucracy, big government, ect. I'm not asking about that. What would the effects of cutting these programs be on the people? How is cutting federal funding for schools going to improve them? What's going to happen to people on social security, medicare or medicade? What about people on food stamps? I'm giving you a chance to explain how you think this will impact the people and make their lives better.

Having people rely on the Government does not make their lives better. It just makes them dependent on the Government to take care of their problems for them. They never truly grow up sucking on the Government Teat. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions. If you're not contributing to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, you should not be able to draw from it. You are not a contributor to society. You are a leach. Living off the work and sweat of others.

I'd phase out SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Those who have paid into it, can draw it when their time comes. Those who haven't paid into it, or have just started contributing, should be able to opt out completely. I would if I had a choice. Those who don't contribute, don't get it. Once my generation passes, scrap the programs completely. Never bring them back.

Schools should be a local or state issue. Not a Federal one. Each city/county/state is going to have different needs and requirements. The locals can take care of that issue with property taxes, sales taxes, etc. Whatever $ issues states are having, can easily be fixed by phasing out pensions being paid to public employees(including politicians), and being more efficient with where tax money is being spent. In Surplus years put some money aside in a rainy day fund. Only to be used in times of crisis or years where the tax revenue isn't as good. Send the rest of the surplus back to the tax users. Don't increase state spending when you have Surpluses. California did this. It more than doubled our budget over the past decade. Then when the economy tanked, our budget was still over 100 billion dollars, but revenue was cut severely.

I do not want ANY Federal Money spent on Food Stamps or other entitlement programs. None. Zero. Zilch. That was NEVER the intent of the U.S. Government. Ever. I don't give a damn about people who've made poor decisions in their lives. There are charities and churches in local communities willing to help people. You can find help there. But I hate seeing people come to the government with their hands held out looking for free food, free money, free shelter, etc.

Now those who have just had bad luck, I'd support some kind of STATE programs to help them. But not Federal.

[Tsuyoshi]

^ I think the question Kamui's trying to pose is how the removal of social cares and programs are going to change things and if they will be for better or for worse. He's not asking for what people should be doing or what should be happening, he's asking you what you think will happen if such a measure were to be taken. Bear in mind that a lot of these people don't even have a home. Should they just be left out on the streets to die? i'm sorry, but to me that's just inhumane. You are right that people should take responsibility for their actions, but more often than not, a lot of these people who rely on the programs have nothing else left for them. I doubt even they like to live in shelters.

[Vexx]

There simply aren't enough shelters and aid systems in place (either private, religious, or government) to go around for everyone.

In the US right now, there are six people officially looking for work for every job slot available. That doesn't include the ones who've given up in depression after looking for a year or more - or whom have simply fallen off the list because the unemployment ran out.

Pulling the social safety net down right now is likely to have unintended results. The fascinating thing is that many countries *have* social safety nets that pretty much work ... but there seems to be a different underlying ethic in how to make use of them.

Japan is interesting to me because until the 1990s... the corporations themselves were the social safety net as they were a barely disguised variation on the old clan systems. You pledged fealty to the overlords and were employed "for life". In the 90s, the Japanese corporations borrowed the American "solution" of firing all the career personnel and mostly using variable temps. The government failed to notice the 'surplus labor pool' had just been dumped in their lap and there are few social safety nets in place. So they have a mess on their hands.

The conservatives would like to remove the social safety nets in the US.... which might work if corporations returned to their hiring styles of the period between 1940s and the 1980s. But when you've made a primary revenue stream out of the elimination of jobs.... going to be an interesting ride on the bucket down.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

^ I think the question Kamui's trying to pose is how the removal of social cares and programs are going to change things and if they will be for better or for worse. He's not asking for what people should be doing or what should be happening, he's asking you what you think will happen if such a measure were to be taken. Bear in mind that a lot of these people don't even have a home. Should they just be left out on the streets to die? i'm sorry, but to me that's just inhumane. You are right that people should take responsibility for their actions, but more often than not, a lot of these people who rely on the programs have nothing else left for them. I doubt even they like to live in shelters.

Exactly. I want to get an idea what people who support cutting these programs think will happen to people who currently rely on them and the country as a whole. Obviously they must think it'll have a net benefit to do so since they support it. I'm curious to see what they think will change because of it, how things are going to improve, what negative consequences it'll have, ect. Though maybe I should ask on another forum with more conservatives then post here.


Also just found this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/...rkey_coup_plot

Over 50 Turkish commanders held over coup plot

ANKARA, Turkey – Once they were untouchable. Some were members of Turkey's elite military class known as "pashas," a title of respect harking back to Ottoman times. For decades, Turkey's senior officers, self-appointed guardians of the country's secular tradition, called the shots.

But Monday, the balance of power in this EU candidate appeared to have undergone a major shift. Turkish police detained 52 military commanders for allegedly planning to blow up mosques in order to trigger a military takeover and overthrow the Islamic-oriented government.

In a way it's good news, assuming the charges are real, as it shows the elected government is taking control. On the other hand though, the elected government is more islamic than the secular military.

[SaintessHeart]

So that is how it is......

U.S. Special Operations Ordered Deadly Afghan Strike

KABUL—U.S. Special Operations Forces ordered an airstrike that killed at least 27 civilians in southern Afghanistan and the soldiers may not have satisfied rules of engagement designed to avoid the killing of innocents, Afghan and coalition officials said Monday.

The airstrike Sunday hit a group of minibuses in a remote part of the south near the border between Uruzgan and Daykundi provinces. The area is hundreds of miles from Marjah, where the largest allied offensive since 2001 is now in its second week. But the airstrike nonetheless illustrated one of the major problems for coalition forces as they try to win over civilians in Marjah and across Afghanistan: figuring out who is a civilian and who is an insurgent—and not killing the civilians.

It also underscored the risks of the expanding use of Special Operations Forces, whose primary mission is hunting down Taliban, as the leading edge of the fight against the insurgents. Many Special Operations missions by their very nature emphasize the use of violent force, and coalition officials say they have led to a string of recent successes against valuable targets.

By contrast, operations now being carried out by conventional forces, such as the Marines fighting in Marjah, place a greater emphasis on protecting ordinary people.

Afghanistan's cabinet called the latest airstrike "unjustifiable." Afghan and North Atlantic Treaty Organization officials ordered an immediate investigation into the incident, and both sides dispatched investigative teams to the site, officials said.

A large proportion of the thousands of civilians killed by coalition forces since 2001 have been slain in errant airstrikes, and the anger over such deaths runs deep here.

Afghans can often recite from memory the deadliest coalition mistakes: the bombing of fuel tankers in the northern province of Kunduz in September that killed up to 142 people, many of them civilians; the 2000-pound bomb dropped by a B-1 bomber during a battle in western Farah province in May that left dozens of civilians dead; the November 2008 airstrike on a wedding in the southern province of Kandahar that killed 37 people.

The incidents have repeatedly handed the Taliban propaganda victories. The errant strikes now pose a direct challenge to the counter-insurgency strategy laid out by U.S. Army Gen. McChrystal, the top coalition commander in Afghanistan, and endorsed by President Barack Obama.

The strategy uses conventional forces to protect civilians and emphasizes the role of governance in an effort to win the trust of the Afghan people and wean them from the Taliban. Special Operations Forces are being more quietly employed to go after the middle and upper ranks of the insurgency, in theory presenting them with a choice of giving up the fight or facing the consequences, say NATO officers with knowledge of the effort.

Aware of the fallout caused by civilian deaths, Gen. McChrystal ordered the rules under which airstrikes could be called in tightened when he arrived this past summer. Civilian casualties caused by coalition forces dropped by a third last year. In contrast, the number of people killed by the Taliban and other militants rose by about 40%.

But Gen. McChrystal and Afghan President Hamid Karzai say the number has to come down much further if the coalition and the Afghan government are to prevail over the Taliban and its allies.

The coalition and Afghan forces fighting in Marjah have also accidentally killed civilians since the offensive began after midnight on Feb. 13. So far, at least 19 civilians have been killed in the offensive, along with at least 13 coalition troops and one Afghan soldier, officials have confirmed.

Coalition commanders say they worry the civilian deaths will undermine the operation's ultimate goal – restoring the authority of the Afghan government in the southern town and convincing the people there to throw in their lot with the government and the coalition.

Sunday's airstrike appears to be precisely the kind of incident that Gen. McChrystal and his team were trying to avoid with the new rules.

NATO's Afghanistan task force said its forces believed the minibuses were carrying insurgents who were on their way to attack Afghan and NATO troops. It engaged the minibuses with "airborne weapons," NATO said in a statement, without elaborating.

But when troops went to the scene, they "found women and children," the statement said, not insurgents. The wounded were taken to a NATO facility for treatment.

Afghan officials said 27 civilians were killed. The NATO statement didn't provide additional details on the incident.

A NATO spokesman said he couldn't confirm that U.S. Special Operations Forces called in the strike. But other NATO and Afghan officers said the airstrike was ordered by Special Operations Forces who were carrying out a raid with Afghan soldiers and believed the minibuses carried fresh Taliban fighters sent to help those under attack.

How the soldiers came to that conclusion was unclear.

The NATO investigative team is trying to determine whether the soldiers had satisfied the requirements for calling in an airstrike.

Under the rules, which are classified, airpower is meant to be a last resort for soldiers who can't pull back from an imminent threat or sit it out. Airstrikes are also allowed on targets engaged in clearly predatory action, such a planting a hidden roadside bomb, one of the deadliest threats faced by coalition forces.

Troops calling in an airstrike on a threat that isn't immediate are, when possible, supposed to have secondary confirmation that the target is indeed hostile, such as from a spotter or a trusted informant on the ground.

A NATO officer in Afghanistan cautioned that the investigation is still in its preliminary states. But right now, "it doesn't look like the rules were properly followed," the officer said.

Special Operations Forces missions have recently led to the deaths or capture of a number of senior and mid-level Taliban field commanders. But NATO officers also say a number of recent accidental killings have been the result of Special Operations Forces actions, although they declined to specify which ones.

Afghan officials complain Special Operations Forces are killing and arresting too many civilians in so-called "night raids," a major source of tension between coalition officials and the Karzai administration.

"Nobody has an idea what were they doing there because they don't share anything with the Afghans," said an official at the presidential palace. He added that U.S. Special Operations Forces "arrest people and they raid houses without keeping the Afghans in the loop."

The presidential palace echoed those sentiments in a statement condemning Sunday's air raid. Afghanistan's "council of ministers strongly urges the NATO forces to closely coordinate and exercise maximum care before conducting any military operation so that any possible mistakes that may result in harming civilians … can be avoided," the statement said. Gen. McChrystal apologized to Mr. Karzai, according to a later statement released by the palace.

In the statement released by NATO, Gen. McChrystal was quoted as saying, "I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people, and inadvertently killing or injuring civilians undermines their trust and confidence in our mission. We will re-double our efforts to regain that trust."
Read More

Meanwhile, a suicide bombing in the eastern city of Jalalabad killed at least 15 people, including a prominent tribal elder, Mohammad Zaman Ghamsharik. Mr. Ghamsharik, also known as Haji Zaman, led the Afghan forces who cornered Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001 before bin Laden slipped away. Ahmad Zia Abdulzai, a spokesman for the governor of Nangarhar province, confirmed he was among the dead. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombing.
—Michael M. Phillips in Marjah, Afghanistan, and Habib Zahori in Kabul contributed to this article

Waiting for the bus to stop sounds like a good idea. But digging in and fighting another 100 crazed Taliban (if the buses contained them) sounds like a bad one : the SF squad will get cut down in a matter of minutes.

This is certainly tragic, I don't think the squad involved wants it to happen either.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/...rkey_coup_plot

In a way it's good news, assuming the charges are real, as it shows the elected government is taking control. On the other hand though, the elected government is more islamic than the secular military.

It's not really good news, considering what Islamic nations usually turn into. In this case, the Turkish military really is protecting the people from themselves.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Having people rely on the Government does not make their lives better. It just makes them dependent on the Government to take care of their problems for them. They never truly grow up sucking on the Government Teat. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions. If you're not contributing to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, you should not be able to draw from it. You are not a contributor to society. You are a leach. Living off the work and sweat of others.

I'd phase out SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Those who have paid into it, can draw it when their time comes. Those who haven't paid into it, or have just started contributing, should be able to opt out completely. I would if I had a choice. Those who don't contribute, don't get it. Once my generation passes, scrap the programs completely. Never bring them back.

Schools should be a local or state issue. Not a Federal one. Each city/county/state is going to have different needs and requirements. The locals can take care of that issue with property taxes, sales taxes, etc. Whatever $ issues states are having, can easily be fixed by phasing out pensions being paid to public employees(including politicians), and being more efficient with where tax money is being spent. In Surplus years put some money aside in a rainy day fund. Only to be used in times of crisis or years where the tax revenue isn't as good. Send the rest of the surplus back to the tax users. Don't increase state spending when you have Surpluses. California did this. It more than doubled our budget over the past decade. Then when the economy tanked, our budget was still over 100 billion dollars, but revenue was cut severely.

I do not want ANY Federal Money spent on Food Stamps or other entitlement programs. None. Zero. Zilch. That was NEVER the intent of the U.S. Government. Ever. I don't give a damn about people who've made poor decisions in their lives. There are charities and churches in local communities willing to help people. You can find help there. But I hate seeing people come to the government with their hands held out looking for free food, free money, free shelter, etc.

Now those who have just had bad luck, I'd support some kind of STATE programs to help them. But not Federal.

I was unemployed for a year. If I didn't get food stamps and unemployment checks, I would have become homeless, and now be on the streets, begging. I tried to get a job for the longest time, but someone else always got hired (too many other people looking). I eventually got a job, and am now off unemployment and food stamps, so I can be a productive member of society.

Without that "safety net" I'd be begging you for change on the streets. Or maybe I'd turn to crime and rob your place or mug you. Do you want that? Because that's the alternative. What do you suggest for someone like me? What should I have done if the safety net wasn't there?

You may want to look at some European countries, like the Netherlands. The safety net is even bigger there, and the whole country is better and more able to ride out these depression times because of it.

Do some people live on handouts? Yep. But the solution is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but learn to identify these people and work with them.

Lastly, what's causing our debt is massive military spending. If we stopped playing world police and invading countries, and cut down our military spending, we could wipe out the debt in a decade or two, easy. Military spending is almost 800 billion a year. And our adventures overseas are costing us an extra several billion a day. Medicare/Medicaid is the other big chunk at 650 billion or so, and Social Security is about the same.

Cutting food stamps and unemployment wouldn't make a dent in the budget. Not sure what percentage that is, but in comparison, NASA's budget is about 7 billion per year.

Cut a couple billion from the military first, and we can easily afford the programs that make life better for millions of Americans.

Edit: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

^ I think the question Kamui's trying to pose is how the removal of social cares and programs are going to change things and if they will be for better or for worse. He's not asking for what people should be doing or what should be happening, he's asking you what you think will happen if such a measure were to be taken. Bear in mind that a lot of these people don't even have a home. Should they just be left out on the streets to die? i'm sorry, but to me that's just inhumane. You are right that people should take responsibility for their actions, but more often than not, a lot of these people who rely on the programs have nothing else left for them. I doubt even they like to live in shelters.

It's not the Government's job to take care of you. It's not my job to take care of you. If I decide to help you with my time and money, that's up to me.

Just like Police are not required to protect you, I'm not required to take care of you. I know I sound like an asshole, but frankly, I'm sick and tired of the Government taking money from my paychecks and gives it to people who don't do anything to deserve it. It's redistribution of wealth, and it's going to be a leading cause of a revolution someday.

As inhumane as you think it is, making the Government go bankrupt is even worse in the long term.

I've been working since before I had my driver's license. When everybody else around me didn't have money, I had money from working. I also have made sure that where ever I got hired, they had some form of health insurance. I've done fairly well for myself having not even finished college. With the housing market finally coming back down to realistic levels, I even have gone halves with my father for a house in Lake Havasu, Arizona. A nice 3 bedroom 1900sq place. Should make a nice vacation home for the spring and fall when it's not so hot there. I'm also debating going back to school to finish my degree, or get a second job just to pass the time. Scouring Craigslist there's hundreds of jobs available for those who want to work(I'm only referring to San Diego where I live). I'm waiting to find one that I want to work with the hours that I can do(since I have a full-time job already). If I can succeed, anybody can. So pardon me if I don't feel sorry for most people. I've been contributing to my community and to my country in some fashion for half of my short life, and will continue to do so for another 30-40 years. I also vote in every election, and am involved in the politics of my area.